Leaked Documents Reveal That Fallout 4 Is Real, Set In Boston

Still upset about that massive Fallout 4 hoax? Here's some good news for you: The next entry in Bethesda's post-apocalyptic RPG series is real, it's in development right now, and, as rumoured, it appears to be set in Boston, according to casting documents obtained by Kotaku.

Two weeks ago, a Kotaku reader sent me several documents from a casting call for a project code-named Institute. The casting documents, which I've been able to confirm are real, include scripts, character descriptions, and other details about the next Fallout, and although the word Fallout does not appear in these scripts, there are several references to Fallout's setting and locations. (The casting director for this project also worked on other Bethesda games, like Dishonored and Skyrim.)

This is the first confirmation we've received that the next Fallout game is in the works -- although it's been generally assumed that Bethesda Game Studios, the development studio behind Fallout 3, has been working on a new Fallout since completing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim back in 2011, Bethesda has yet to announce the new game in any form. In 2012, rumours circulated that Bethesda employees were scouting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston for an upcoming Fallout game, but other than that, news has been thin.

Yet the next Fallout remains one of the world's most anticipated games, and a few weeks ago, when an apparent teaser website called TheSurvivor2299 popped up on Reddit, people went crazy. The site, which was crafted as if it were an alternate reality game, hinted at a Fallout 4 announcement through a trickle of hidden messages and plot details, revealed through morse code and other cyphers. The sheer level of detail made the website seem real to some observers, but Bethesda wouldn't comment one way or another.

Turned out TheSurvivor2299 was an elaborate hoax. Fortunately, the next Fallout game is real, and although we don't know what it's called, we know thanks to these documents that the game is in the works.

Although some of the details I've seen may have been written simply for the casting call, and any of the dialogue could be changed by the time the next Fallout is actually released, they're interesting to read through. Here's what could be the game's opening intro, for example:

"War. War never changes," is the classic introduction used at the beginning of Fallouts 1, 2, and 3. That speech is typically narrated by actor Ron Perlman, although this page seems to suggest that the player-character will read the monologue this time around.

Other documents describe a mission set in the Institute -- Fallout's post-apocalyptic version of MIT -- and references to other Fallout locations that have been mentioned but never shown in other games, like the Commonwealth, which comprises what's left of Massachusetts.

One character in the documents -- who, again, may not show up in the actual game -- is named Preston Garvey. One script describes a mission in which Garvey sends you to salvage a fusion core from a museum in the Commonwealth.

The casting documents describe some of the other characters in the next Fallout's wasteland, like a radio DJ named Travis Miles and an engineer named Sturges who is described as "a cross between Buddy Holly and Vin Diesel." Casting calls for both the male and female versions of the player character note that the player begins the game in a cryogenic sleep chamber.

Again, it's worth noting that these details may have been invented for the casting call, and they may change during development. We also don't know whether the game will be called Fallout 4, or whether Boston will be the sole setting or just one of many.

The big takeaway here is that the next Fallout game is real. It's currently in development at Bethesda. So if you're upset about that teaser website turning out to be a hoax, at least take some comfort in this.

WATCH MORE: Gaming News

Comments

we all know it's been in development for a while now, we don't want rumours and leaked info to confirm that, what we want (well, what I want at least) is an official announcement from Bethesda about the game. That's why so many people were disappointed with the hoax

Yep. The only way they'd pass on Fallout 4 is if they made a Fallout MMORPG. All we want is to end this overly dramatic secrecy. Bethesda, you can tell us you're making Fallout 4. We know it's happening, you know we know it's happening, and if you admit that it's happening you can still do all your BS marketing drip feeding information junk closer to release. The only thing confirming Fallout 4 will hurt is people's ability to pull hoaxes like the one we just saw.

The thing is that when you announce a game it is expected that some visual or story elements come with it, if you don't you might as well have said nothing. Besides that an announcement of a game, or indeed anything, is the second most important marketing points for the release of the product. It would be a waste to give up on this chance.

Announcing the game is only an important mile stone because so many developers refuse to even consider talking about the game at all until they're ready to start hyping the game. Simply announcing the game is being worked on isn't exciting. Announcing that you're ready to start talking about the game is. We've simply got to the point where those two have been put together so often that we treat them like they're linked.
When there was a possibility that hoax was legit were you excited about knowing the game was being worked on, which I'm assuming you already knew, or were you excited that they were going to start talking about it? All they have to do is separate the two.
If right now they said 'yep, we're working on another main series Fallout game, we're really excited about it but we're not ready to start talking about it' that wouldn't take away from the release of the first teasers six to eight months from now. We would see that teaser image or domain or whatever and think 'sweet, now they're ready to start talking!' just like we do now. The only difference is that fans would sleep a little easier.

The only way it would harm them is if they had literally nothing else to show us when they started on the PR trail. Frankly if a simple yes/no confirmation is that important to your hype train then you've made a shitty game. Fallout 4 is going to be a good game. It's going to have a lot more to talk about than just 'yeah, we're making it', so why force that confirmation to be the high point of the pre-release schedule?

I get that there is a certain limbo point, where the game is being worked on but they're not willing to commit to ever releasing it, but they seem to have jumped on that idea and warped it into needlessly teasing their fan base.

My point is more along the lines of what is a more powerful marketing message.

if they said. " We are making Fallout 4, here's a trailer of what it will be like." It would have more impact than if they said. "we are making Fallout 4" and then six months later suddenly a trailer appeared (I admit that they would telegraph the trailer so it won't be sudden but that neither here nor there. whats more, if they just did a text announcement on their website you would have a number of people asking, and many complaining, why there is no trailer or images to go along with it. So why bother separating the two.

To be fair the fact that we are having this conversation in the first place kind of leads me to believe that people really do get excited for the announcement of a game.

On a final note they are not "needlessly teasing" the game at all, it is an established marketing technique that has worked successfully on a number of other games and entertainment products. so yeah.....

I for one praise them for their boldness. Putting it all on the line like this. It's going to be a true underdog story of the little critically acclaimed, financially dependable, almost universally beloved, AAA+ franchise that could. =P

"...then, in the 21st century... the entire world unraveled. We NOW stand on the brink of total war"

This puts this monologue BEFORE the bombs drop. I would say there will be game-play during the war, up until the nuclear winter. But if we're playing as the same character as the monologue, then the rest of the game couldn't be more than 10 to 20 years after this time. This shouldn't be possible, because Fallout lore states the nuclear winter and radiation fallout lasted decades, leaving nothing but mutated creatures and ghoul-mutated humans.

edit: meant to write; maybe Boston didn't get hit as bad by nuclear fallout...? Boston is also near the Canadian border. I think lore goes China invaded US-annexed Canada and thats where the war took place. Boston could be the (WW2) Stalingrad of The Great War.

Also, the conversation in the 2nd scan, "Lexington looked good for a while, but raiders drove us outta there..." sounds like its not as settled as any of the Wastelands we've been in yet.

you must have missed where they mentioned the PC wakes from a cryogenic sleep chamber, I'm guessing there'll be gameplay or at least the intro during the war, then something happens so the PC ends up in a cry chamber until a time contemporary with the other Fallout games.

edit: meant to write; maybe Boston didn't get hit as bad by nuclear fallout...? Boston is also near the Canadian border. I think lore goes China invaded US-annexed Canada and thats where the war took place. Boston could be the (WW2) Stalingrad of The Great War.

Just going off the Operation Anchorage DLC, the Chinese invasion happened in Anchorage, Alaska to get to the oil fields there so that would put it at the other end of the country to Boston.

Is it odd that the fact I need clarification on the most is if Ron Perlman will get to utter those words we know and love? It needs to happen.

Also, are Bethesda developing this? After the horrific memories of NV's launch state, I sure hope so. Please don't let Obsidian leave another dirty great shit stain on my all-time favorite franchise. I know, i know - NV turned out just fine - but at launch it was a broken mess, and still haunts me to this day. Even took time off for it's launch I was so excited, only to find it was unplayable for the first 3 days.

Yes, I'm fully aware - but without going into blame, Fallout 3 for me was fine at launch, NV was an unplayable mess. Fallout 3 developed some very minor stability/frame rate issues by the time the 3rd or 4th DLC dropped - but apart from that, it was fine the whole way through. I even played it through on both 360 and PS3.

As a die hard fan of the series, I don't care who's fault it was, but my greatly anticipated game (NV) was an unplayable mess which I promptly returned to the store a week after purchase. Only after forcing myself to complete the game through countless freezes, save game corruptions and endless gameplay glitches.

Bethesda's Fallout was fine, Obsidian's was far from it. That's all I really care about.

EDIT: I even had the nice CE with the cards and Platinum Chip. I still took it back in disgust.

Performance wise, yes, F3 was marginally better - only because Bethesda is the only developer who can make that piece of shit engine Gamebryo work well. If you're talking about storyline / atmoshphere etc, then you're definitely wrong.

I made no mention of story or game content quality at any point. My issue with NV was from a technical standpoint. It was unacceptable - in much the same fashion the PS3 port of Skyrim was also an unfunny joke that I took back to the store as well. It got to the point in Skyrim where you couldn't play for more than 30 minutes before the fps dropped to about 2 or 3, and you had to reboot your PS3. That was a Bethesda title. I don't care who made the games, it's insulting to fans of the series and consumers in general to expect them to pay $80 odd for a game and to take it home and find a bug filled mess that's almost unplayable.

I still believe if NV wasn't so munted on release, it would've overtaken Fallout 3 as one of my favorite Fallout games (or games in general) quite easily. As it stands, I'll always remember NV as a huge disappointment, and the first game in my beloved Fallout series I have any seriously negative memories of.

I think people need to differentiate between me picking on NV as a game, and finding it's release state unacceptable and insulting. NV was a great game - when it actually worked. Which in my experience, was very rarely.

It's just odd that Fallout 3 was fine on 360 and PS3. NV was a mess, and so was Skyrim. Although the Skyrim issue I think was exclusively with the PS3 port - and probably has more to with Cell Broadband and the hardware difference. It's a shame because I get far more enjoyment out of those games on console than I do PC. I like being able to dung out on the couch and immerse myself in these giant worlds.

I agree on the vegging out, however I do that with my PC. Steam Big Picture + PS3 controller = bliss. Also, the gamebryo comment wasn't just meant to be a jab at console performance, but moreso the insane modding potential and community that every Gamebryo game has - I've never played through a single bethesda game apart from Morrowind unmodded.

You're essentially saying "Well, I know Obsidian isn't REALLY to blame for the shitty launch, but I need someone to blame for the shitty launch so it might as well be Obsidian because their name is on the box." You even said that blame isn't important yet you're blaming Obsidian for the bad launch of the game and saying you don't want them to touch another Fallout. That's a contradiction right there. I don't call that "perfectly reasonable".

You outright ignored the idea that they weren't to blame or at the very least didn't bear the entire blame and thus decided they shouldn't make the next game, without considering any other factors in the failure of the launch of the last game, or the high quality of the finished product.

You are ignoring far too many salient points for me to think your opinion is valid. You've taken the only correlation in development, that Obsidian developed New Vegas, Bethesda developed FO3. NV: poor launch, FO3: slightly less poor launch. Therefore: "Obsidian are terrible devs and they should never make another Fallout". Because you're too ignorant to consider any other factors that might have caused the poor launch of New Vegas, you're biased against Obsidian and seem to think they're the devil just because their name is on the box.

I'd rather a great game with a bad launch then a worse game with a marginally better launch. peoples inability to get over the past is absurd, especially when they don't even bother to acknowledge the context of said past that they refuse to get over, there are reasons obsidians game wasn't so stable, ranging from them working on somebody elses engine that has been proven hard to work with all the way to them being rushed out the door by other parties, but at the end of the day it's irrelevant, you are saying you want a worse game just because it will be a little stabler at release (but not necessarily later in its lifetime), and knowing bethesda it wouldn't even be a safe gamble because their game is just as likely to be a steaming pile of bugs and crashes.

hell I recently played through both skyrim and NV again and I can tell you this, my completely vanilla skyrim suffered more game breaking bugs/glitches and crashes/corruptions in less time then my fully modded out the ass NV did (and none of the mods I used in NV had any kind of performance enhancement and if anything most of them made the game more likely to screw up).

NV was a massive step up from 3 and really managed to find a better balance between the new bethesda format and old FO style, and the fact that you would would call it a "dirty great shit stain" straight up makes me glad you have no official power over the series, if given a choice between bethesda and obsidian I'd choose obsidian every time, the only advantage bethesda has is their ability to cake layers of polish over anything (even the largest steaming turd) but polish is no substitute for a good game, besides now that obsidian have more experience with the engine and everything I'd be more then a little surprised if they couldn't make a more stable game.

that being said I'd be glad if either of them made the next fallout game, I'd just prefer obsidian because I feel they understand the series a hell of a lot better and would take it in a much better direction, although at the end of the day... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawrlVoQqSs&noredirect=1

Again - 'dirty great shit stain' wasn't a comment on the game's content, story, characters, design, playability - anything. I was referring to it's technical side - stability, bugs, glitches, whatnot. I only ever badmouthed that side of it - not once did I say it was a bad game. I confessed earlier, if you read up - that if it weren't for it's shoddy release state, it'd be my favorite Fallout game of all time, and one of my favorite games of all time, period.

i wish people would actually read what I was trying to say before getting their backs up.

EDIT: I'm also glad to hear your NV was fine, because mine was utterly fucked.

I did read what you said, and your statements original context was in relation to the launches impact on the overall series, I disagree because it only left that impression for people like you who seem to be entirely incapable of moving on from where a game was and why to where it is now and how.

as I said, the fact that you would overlook how much better that game was in favor of one fuck-up (that wasn't even really obsidians fault thus rendering it a moot point in your arguments against them) that in the end doesn't even impact on the finished product makes me glad you don't have any real pull.

don't ask people to "actually read" what you say unless you're prepared do it yourself.

and you should go back and play NV now, it's much more stable then it was, and almost every single remaining issue can be fixed through mods (although I never really bothered with fixer mods personally because I find the game runs well enough that I don't see the need).

giving a player a set character with such an open world is silly, it places an entirely arbitrary limitation on what the player can and can't be, they can do what they want but at the end of the day they'll be the pre determined character whether their choices line up with it or not.

If I play a profiteering drug addict I want my character to be a profiteering drug addict or at least someone who is open to that interpretation, but if he's johnny blow action hero #5 or even a really well fleshed out character that is anything other then a profiteering drug addict then I'm not gonna be able to be who I want and the game will fail to ultimately reflect that.

I'd rather a system that lets you give your character the type and amount of depth you want then a system that assigns an arbitrary amount and doesn't give you a say in the matter. and I think that was one of the ways fallout was good, it gave you plenty of options (usually in different areas of the moral spectrum) and let you decide what you wanted your character to be, if you experienced any lack of depth then it was fully your own fault, I thought the game facilitated character depth rather well. clean (if not blank) slate is almost always the best approach in a more open world game, the only people it doesn't benefit are those that need the developers to tell them how they should tie their characters shoelace.

The problem is no game is capable of truly giving a "blank-slate" character personality. You have gameplay mechanics and statistics, and you can alter the appearance of your character but you can't really change him/her. You can pretend that your character is a drug addict, but the game really has no way of reflecting that.

Ambient dialogue doesn't change much. Quests don't change much. Your interactions don't change much. If we could create a game where you could truly change your character - and the game dynamically adapts to your choice - I'd agree that would be amazing. But until then, "blank-slate" characters will always be flat and uninteresting.

At least with games like Mass Effect etc. there is some guts to the basic character that you can tweak from there. For now, that's the best approach.

NV could easily reflect drug addictions... in fact it was part of the game that when you took drugs you had a chance of getting addicted, that reflected your character if you wanted them to have an addiction and at no point did anybody say you're character wasn't the type to get addicted or do drugs so you were perfectly capable of making that part of the character and not just something you did despite the character. I know because my main character has a steady addiction.

and the world reflected your choices in the way the story unfolded, want to solve the ghoul infestation by helping them build a rocket? great, you can do that, want to be evil and just massacre a whole bunch of innocent ghouls? you can do that too, and the game gave you the choice to be that way, but if you have a predefined character then those choices are moot, because ultimately you're either being in character or you're being out of character, because you don't get to be the character you want.

blank characters are only uninteresting and flat if you lack the basic creativity to make them interesting, if you're one of those people that can't enjoy a character that hasn't been explicitly laid out before you in triplicate then I feel very sorry for you. a blank character is like a blank canvas, uninteresting if you don't put paint on it, but if the game offers you those paints (as fallout traditionally does) and you choose to leave the canvas blank and boring then that's you're own damn fault, don't take canvas away from Leonardo because you can't paint.

I'm not one to usually weigh in on Fallout rumors, but this is so clearly fake. There is zero indication that this comes from any real source. Anyone, aaannnyyyonnnee with access to Microsoft word could create the script provided. Never mind the fact that they've apparently gone against convention and provided a stock 'hero' archetype rather than allow for a player customised character. Way to completely burn your entire female fanbase. I love how it also follows the general themes that were speculated on the fallout subreddit during the survivor2299 countdown. This is nothing. It's obviously not legit, and is borderline completely stupid.

There are basic errors in the script too. There is no such thing as a 'chopper' in the Fallout universe (with one exception in Fallout Tactics), the closest equivalent is the vertibird, a tiltwing aircraft which is never referred to as anything but.

Well it looks interesting. The original count down at http://thesurvivor2299.com was counting down to 11.12.13 . The new info leaked out on 11.12.13. http://thesurvivor2299.com is now updated for 27.12.13 (in USA 12.27.13)That means: If the documents are real, than http://thesurvivor2299.com is real too. If http://thesurvivor2299.com is a fake site, than the documents are fake to.﻿

I don't believe it being real, first of all this survivor2299 prick destroying the whole idea with his BS, and right after this appears. Further more Bethesda has not responded to anything at all, besides that this survivor2299 was fake. They clearly mentioned they would say something if there was indeed coming something from their side.

Aside of that there are multiple reasons why this would be fake:
1. The picture of that vault dweller seems nice and all, but I get a odd feeling we seen that somewhere before. Dejavu feelings all over again.

2. None of the Fallout games used the player as the narrator for the start nor the ending of the game. It was always a voice not used by any NPC or player in the game. Making this a huge doubt of it being real.

3. Although there were rumors for years that it would be in Boston, Bethesda did mention multiple times that it was not true. They could easily change to Boston early in the process of making this game, since so many people want to see Boston and the institute. Yet I never seen any developer change their mind and listen to the gamers (although many do say they do listen to gamers). I suggest to draw your own conclusions, this could go either way.

4. In those files you can read about something going back as far as 1945 about his grandfather, Not sure what this was has to do with the Fallout series, but oh well. We could watch and see what happens in that.
Also you can read about the player having a wife and infant son, if this is true then you only will be able to use a male character OR the infant son will be the player instead. I however do not see why we must believe you can only play as male in this game. None of the previous versions had only male as player character. So this is another nail in the coffin of this 'leak'.

5. In the Fallout series you can choose your response in a conversation, none of these 'leaked files' is there any mention of something remotely like that.

6. It mentions there is a 'crashed chopper on the roof of this place', I only know about Vertibirds and technically speaking those are not choppers but more similar to the V-22 Osprey. Also in the same conversation there is mention of a 'fusion core out of the battery compartment' and it could be used to power up their weapons. Now this is a very odd thing to mention, since there are not weapons currently known that need to power up by using some generator or other wise.

7. in the last line of that same page the player mentions he could keep the fusion core and the weapon, the same fusion core that is earlier suggested by the player to be powering the entire museum... Err... am I missing something or did the player turn insanely strong in no time? How the hell can 1 person carry so much weight???

There is mention of weapons that obviously need power from a external supply, as in previous point mentioned even a fusion core. Now IF it is real AND in the Boston / The institute area, then yeah we could espect a lot of new weapons and armor. But according to all 7 previous points the chances of it being remotely realistic... The odds are slim at best.

I leave this further up to everyone reading the comments, you choose weither to believe or not. I simply do not see proof that it is real.